Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Detained by police for unpaid PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5358 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

So, a PCN is issued for a decriminalised parking contravention and FPN's are issued for non recordable offences, often non endorseable. Where is the link to criminal behaviour?

 

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I would think that such detention would amount to false imprisonment.

 

Lets encourage the OP to make an allegation of false imprisonment as a test case

it is assault.

 

do we have anyone here that this has happened to recently ? and who is prepared to stand up and complain ?

 

Same with this one for assault

 

Maybe FairParking can complain on their behalf as they offered above

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

 

Not as I understand that paper. It does not link PCNs and FPNs as you suggest. It links Non-motoring offences against Motoring offences. Not PCNs. In fact that study found that the number of speeding offences decreased with the number of non-motoring offences committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as I understand that paper. It does not link PCNs and FPNs as you suggest. It links Non-motoring offences against Motoring offences. Not PCNs. In fact that study found that the number of speeding offences decreased with the number of non-motoring offences committed.

 

 

You could be correct, however its the Police who maintain there is a connection not me so its them you need to convince.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be correct, however its the Police who maintain there is a connection not me so its them you need to convince.

But thinking about it, this is all irellevant. The purpose of the stop was purely to force the OP to contact the bailiffs, not to check the condition of the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But thinking about it, this is all irellevant. The purpose of the stop was purely to force the OP to contact the bailiffs, not to check the condition of the car.

 

I guess only the copper who stopped the driver knows the real reason. Even if it was to contact the balliffs an hour seems a long time to be standing at the roadside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess only the copper who stopped the driver knows the real reason. Even if it was to contact the balliffs an hour seems a long time to be standing at the roadside.

Well this is what the OP said in the first post:

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is what the OP said in the first post:

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

 

....and that took an hour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and this bailiffs warrant is a CIVIL matter.

The police are not 'the authority' according to the Practice Directions.

 

As the TEC themselves publish on:-

Traffic Enforcement Centre

 

The legislation relating to TEC is:

 

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 (schedule 6)

 

London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended)

The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emission) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002

 

The London Road User Charging Regulations 2001

 

The Civil Procedure Rules relating to the TEC is Part 75

 

 

Thems the rules folks.

 

 

CPR part 75 is here

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

Practice Direction supplement CPR 75 refers to is here

PRACTICE DIRECTION – TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 75

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt here is the definition

" ‘authority’ means the authority entitled to recover amounts due under the enactments referred to in paragraph"

 

So where is their 'get out' that allows the police to do this legally ? i.e. for civil debts created by decriminalised parking tickets.

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

 

As usual G & M you are missing the point. The police should not be involved in proactively stopping vehicles which show up on ANPR for the sole reason of having an outstanding PCN. It is not within their remit. After all, if you went to the police to complain about the behaviour of a bailiff collecting a civil debt you can guarantee that 99.9 times out of a 100 they would say it's a civil matter. You only have to go to the debt section to see plenty of posts to show this. So why should they be getting involved with a private company and helping them collect civil debts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual G & M you are missing the point. The police should not be involved in proactively stopping vehicles which show up on ANPR for the sole reason of having an outstanding PCN. It is not within their remit. After all, if you went to the police to complain about the behaviour of a bailiff collecting a civil debt you can guarantee that 99.9 times out of a 100 they would say it's a civil matter. You only have to go to the debt section to see plenty of posts to show this. So why should they be getting involved with a private company and helping them collect civil debts?

 

Police should not shoot people because they have a nice tan and a rucksac but that doesn't seem to stop them! The Police will stop you on the grounds you are wearing a hoody, which is not an offence civil or criminal so if they can justify that why not outstanding parking tickets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Police should not shoot people because they have a nice tan and a rucksac but that doesn't seem to stop them!

 

What an absurd response.:rolleyes: It shows you are totally bereft of logic if that is the best you can come up with to answer why the police should be getting involved in a partnership with a private company who are chasing civil debts.

 

The Police will stop you on the grounds you are wearing a hoody, which is not an offence civil or criminal so if they can justify that why not outstanding parking tickets?

 

But they don't have the bailiffs on stand-by once they have stopped the person with the hoody:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an absurd response.:rolleyes: It shows you are totally bereft of logic if that is the best you can come up with to answer why the police should be getting involved in a partnership with a private company who are chasing civil debts.

 

 

 

But they don't have the bailiffs on stand-by once they have stopped the person with the hoody:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage. It didn't sound like the car was seized or that the debt was settled.

I cannot see why this is such a problem, if you are not breaking the law what is the problem with being stopped. If the car is correctly registered the balliff can simply visit your address to collect the money anyway?

This site is not about advice on avoiding the law, if you parked in contravention you can appeal, if you lose you pay, thats the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage. It didn't sound like the car was seized or that the debt was settled.

 

Agreed that that is not 100% clear, but it seems a good possibility that Drakes did attend.

 

 

I cannot see why this is such a problem, if you are not breaking the law what is the problem with being stopped.

 

What law would the OP have been breaking in relation to a civil debt that would allow the police to get involved solely for this issue?

 

 

If the car is correctly registered the balliff can simply visit your address to collect the money anyway?

 

The car could be correctly registered but DVLA have made a cock up or the bailiffs have got it wrong.

 

 

This site is not about advice on avoiding the law, if you parked in contravention you can appeal, if you lose you pay, thats the law.

 

Where exactly is the OP avoiding the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where exactly is the OP avoiding the law?

 

I was not refering to the OP but in general. If stopping the odd innocent person means that those driving un registered, cloned or incorrectly plated vehicles get taken off the road then I'm not complaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not refering to the OP but in general. If stopping the odd innocent person means that those driving un registered, cloned or incorrectly plated vehicles get taken off the road then I'm not complaining.

 

Those are all things for which the police could deal with on their own without the need to link up with private debt collection companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage.

 

No she didn't - Sorry - What she actually said was

 

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

 

Without knowing the facts we are taking stabs in the dark - There may actually be a possession order, court order etc etc for the car so the OP actually needs to make this clearer

Link to post
Share on other sites

more info:-

"If a warrant has been issued in relation to the PCN then the police are under a duty to assist in enforcing it - s. 85(4) of the County Courts Act 1984 - "It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant."

 

"to assist in the execution of every such warrant"

'

the authority' to execute the warrant lies with the bailiff. The bailiff does not have powers to detain the person he is 'serving'.

If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'.

I still reckon that if a policeman detains someone without intending to or purporting to arrest them then they are technically guilty of assault (plus probably other stuff) a la Wood v DPP.

 

 

Pat ?

 

The converse is that if it does apply to Drakes serving warrants for TEC civil debts then anyone who gets a bailiff's warrant against a clamper, a council, a PPC or a bank should have the same ability to get the police to assist.

 

Pat ? (again).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still reckon that if a policeman detains someone without intending to or purporting to arrest them then they are technically guilty of assault (plus probably other stuff) a la Wood v DPP.(again).

 

 

In which case, if there was a warrant in existence to recover the car, they should have just assisted with the seizure of the car and left the OP with no transport, instead of dealing with it sensibly and having the OP deal with the ballifs (Drakes or otherwise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. hence the "If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. hence the "If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'."

 

Let me get this straight, you are agreeing that the Police should have seized the car and allowed the OP to deal with the agent enforcing it directly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am saying that the police extended their powers to the bailiff instead of assisting. as the bailiff has no right to detain the driver at the road side and as the police did not intent to or purport to arrest the driver then 1) the police are acting beyond their powers. 2) the driver could have just driven away.

re 2) police seizing the keys (illegally in my view) lends substance to the inference that they know the driver can legally just drive away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...